3-1

Chapter 3: Open Space

A. INTRODUCTION

This analysis of potential open space impacts follows the methodologies contained in the 2010 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. The CEQR Technical Manual guidelines indicate the need for an open space analysis when an action would result in a direct effect (e.g., the physical loss or alteration of public open space) or an indirect effect caused by the added demand on an area’s open spaces. Typically, an assessment is conducted when a project would introduce 200 or more residents or 500 or more workers to an area; however, the thresholds for assessment are slightly different for areas of the city that have been identified as either underserved or well-served by open space.

The project site is not located within an area that has been identified as either underserved or well-served; however, the proposed project would result in an increase of more than 500 workers who would be expected to use local parks and other open spaces. Therefore, a preliminary analysis of open space is warranted. The CEQR Technical Manual suggests that a preliminary assessment can be useful in clarifying the degree to which an action would affect open space and the need for further analysis. If such further analysis is necessary, then a detailed analysis of open space should be performed.

As described in detail below, the proposed project would not displace any existing open space resources. The passive open space ratio would remain far in excess of the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) guideline of 0.15 acres per 1,000 workers in the future with the proposed project (With Action condition). Therefore, although the ratio would decline by more than 5 percent from the future without the proposed project (No Action condition), the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on passive open space for the worker population.

B. METHODOLOGY

According to CEQR guidelines, the first step in assessing potential open space impacts is to establish study areas appropriate for the new population(s) to be added as a result of the proposed project. Study areas are based on the distance a person is assumed to walk to reach a neighborhood open space. Workers (or non-residents) are assumed to use passive open spaces within an approximately 10-minute walking distance (about ¼-mile). Residents are more likely to travel farther to reach parks and recreational facilities. They are assumed to walk about 20 minutes (about a ½-mile distance) to reach both passive and active neighborhood open spaces.

The proposed project is expected to result in new retail, supermarket, community facility/non-profit office, and light industrial uses; therefore, a non-residential study area based on a ¼-mile radius from the project site was evaluated (see Figure 3-1). The assessment does not include an analysis of residential open space ratios within a ½-mile area, because the proposed project would not introduce any new residents to the area.

29.01

29.02

25

23

BQEBQE

MYRTLE AVMYRTLE AV

JAY

ST

JAY

ST

YORK STYORK ST

FRONT STFRONT ST

NAV

Y S

TN

AVY

ST

ADELPH

I STAD

ELPHI ST

FLUSHING AVFLUSHING AV

CLER

MO

NT AV

CLER

MO

NT AV

PLYMOUTH STPLYMOUTH ST

JOHN STJOHN ST

FLATBUSH

AV EX

FLATBUSH

AV EX

VAND

ERBILT AV

VAND

ERBILT AV

WATER STWATER STB

RID

GE

ST

BR

IDG

E S

T

BQE CNTG HWY

BQE CNTG HWY

NASSAU STNASSAU ST

PROSPECT STPROSPECT STN

POR

TLAND

AVN

POR

TLAND

AV

ASHLAN

D PL

ASHLAN

D PL

TECH PLTECH PL

CONCORD STCONCORD ST

ST EDW

ARD

'S STST ED

WAR

D'S ST

LAW

RE

NC

E S

TLA

WR

EN

CE

ST

SANDS STSANDS ST

PE

AR

L S

TP

EA

RL

ST

CU

MBER

LAND

STC

UM

BERLAN

D ST

CAR

LTON

AVC

ARLTO

N AV

N ELLIO

TT PLN

ELLIOTT PL

N O

XFOR

D ST

N O

XFOR

D ST

CHAPEL STCHAPEL ST

PR

INC

E S

TP

RIN

CE

ST

CATHEDRAL PLCATHEDRAL PL

HU

DS

ON

AV

HU

DS

ON

AV

HIGH STHIGH ST

ANCHORAG

E PL

ANCHORAG

E PL

LITT

LE S

T

LITT

LE S

T

PARK AVPARK AV

GO

LD S

TG

OLD

ST

GO

LD S

TG

OLD

ST

GO

LD S

TG

OLD

ST

TILLARY ST

TILLARY ST

PE

AR

L S

TP

EA

RL

ST

AD

AM

S S

TA

DA

MS

ST

BR

IDG

E S

TB

RID

GE

ST

BR

IDG

E S

TB

RID

GE

ST

DU

FFIE

LD S

T.D

UFF

IELD

ST.

OR

ATO

RY

PL.

OR

ATO

RY

PL.

Open Space ReferenceFigure 3-1

Project Site

Study Area Boundary(1/4-Mile Perimeter)

Open Space Census Tract Boundary

Census Tract Number

Open Space

10.22.10

ADMIRALS ROW PLAZA

29.02

N

SCALE

0 1000 FEET

1

1

2

3

4 5

Admirals Row Plaza

3-2

As recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual, the non-residential open space study area comprises all census tracts that have at least 50 percent of their area located within ¼-mile of the project site. All publicly accessible open spaces, as well as all non-residents within census tracts that fall at least 50 percent within the ¼-mile radius, were included in the study area.

C. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

A preliminary assessment of open space consists of calculating total population, tallying the open space acreage within the area, and comparing the open space ratios for existing, With Action, and No Action conditions. As shown in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 below, within the study area there are a total of five open spaces, with approximately 21.76 acres of open space. Mapped parkland without any amenities (i.e., seating, playground equipment, etc.) was not included in the preliminary assessment.

A notable open space in the study area is the large (10.39-acre) Commodore Barry Park, located directly across Nassau Street from the project site. This park contains a lawn, seating areas, baseball and football fields, basketball and handball courts, playgrounds, and a swimming pool.

Table 3-1 Publicly Accessible Open Spaces in Study Area

Map No. Name Owner

Total Acres Passive Active

1 Commodore Barry Park and Playground DPR 10.39 2.60 7.79

2 Trinity Park DPR 6.3 0.63 0.00

3 Bridge Park 3 DPR 1.934 0.19 1.74

4 Golconda Playground DPR 2.11 0.21 1.90

5 Oxport Playground DPR 1.03 0.10 0.93 Total 21.76 3.73 12.36

The total amount of publicly accessible open space acreage in the study area is not expected to change in the future without or with the proposed project. Under existing conditions, there are approximately 11,372 residents and 3,055 workers in the open space study area. An additional 2,962 residents and 635 workers would be added to the study area in the future without the proposed project, as shown in Table 2-1, “No Action Projects” (see Chapter 2, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy”). The proposed project would introduce approximately 578 additional workers to the open space study area.1 The proposed project would not displace any existing publicly accessible open space acreage.

The adequacy of open space in the study area can be quantitatively assessed using a ratio of usable open space acreage to the study area population—referred to as the open space ratio. Table 3-2 compares the open space ratios for existing, With Action, and No Action conditions.

1 The 578 new workers generated by the proposed project include: approximately 237 retail workers, 28

community facility workers, 151 supermarket workers, and 162 light-industrial workers.

Chapter 3: Open Space

3-3

Table 3-2Preliminary Assessment of Open Space Resources in the Study Area

Ratio

Open Space Ratios per 1,000 Persons Percent Change

DCP Guideline*

Existing Conditions

No Action2014

Proposed Project

Passive (workers) 0.15 1.22 1.01 0.88 -13.54 Passive (total population) 0.43/0.43/0.43 0.26 0.21 0.20 -2.90 Notes: * Weighted average combining 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents and 0.50 acres per 1,000 residents. Because this guideline depends on the proportion of non-residents and residents in the study area’s population, it can be different for existing, With Action, and No Action conditions. Each of these ratios is listed in this table. Sources: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000; 2000 journey-to-work census data compiled by DCP; New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR).

As shown in the table, the existing passive open space ratio for workers in the study area is far above the DCP guideline of 0.15. In the future without the proposed project, the passive open space ratio for workers would decrease from 1.22 to 1.01, remaining above the DCP guideline. With the worker population added by the proposed project, compared to the No Action condition, this open space ratio would decrease from 1.01 to 0.88, which represents a 13.54 percent change; however, the ratio would still be far above the DCP guideline. The passive open space ratio for the total population is currently below the DCP guideline and would remain below the DCP guideline in the future without and with the proposed project; however, the decline in this ratio would be less than 5 percent (2.90 percent).

The CEQR Technical Manual states that a detailed open space assessment is warranted if a proposed project would be expected to decrease open space ratios by 5 percent or more, or by less than 5 percent if a study area exhibits a low open space ratio (i.e., below DCP guidelines); however, the manual’s guidelines also note that when the open space in an area exceeds the DCP guidelines, a greater percentage of change (more than 5 percent) may be tolerated.

The preliminary assessment indicates that, compared to the No Action condition, the proposed project would decrease the passive open space ratio for workers by more than 5 percent; however, the passive open space ratio for workers in the study area is not and would not be low compared to DCP guidelines in the future with the proposed project—at 0.88 acres, it would remain far above the DCP guideline of 0.15 acres. The proposed project would not decrease the passive open space ratio for the total population by more than 5 percent. Therefore, following CEQR methodology, a detailed open space assessment is not required, and the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on open space and recreational facilities.

Qualitative considerations supporting this determination include the project site’s adjacency to the large Commodore Barry Park across Nassau Street and the location of Fort Greene Park just to the south of the ¼-mile study area. Although it is located outside the study area and was not accounted for in the quantitative assessment, this 30.17-acre park is located within ½-mile of the project site and could be utilized by both workers and residents in the ¼-mile study area.